Catherine Austin Fitts’ approach for dealing with vaccine mandates

by Jon Rappoport

August 31, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

“If I taught a college course, I’d take students through a year of tracking a descending trail of government documents, moving down into finer and finer detail as we go; and at the bottom of the trail, which is Hell, we would either find a vacuum, nothing at all, no meaning, a blank; or the clear evidence of intent to do great harm, and to evade discovery. That’s where the details take you, when you break them down far enough.” (Richard Bell)

My longtime friend and colleague, Catherine Austin Fitts, who founded and heads up a marvelous and essential organization, Solari (solari.com), has suggested an approach to dealing with vaccine mandates.

This is an individual strategy, and it’s much more. It could open a wide legal and financial doorway for every person who wants to exercise free choice when it comes to COVID vaccination.

Quoting from our email exchange, this is what Catherine wrote:

“My approach would be to demand from the [company or agency mandating the vaccine] to specify who is legally liable, the employer or the vaccine maker or both, and how that relates to my health insurance, my disability insurance and my life insurance as well as workman’s comp. I would always work the money angle.”

“I would file a case to demand FDA give clear guidance for employers for the informed consent required to explain who has liability for adverse events and related immunosuppression and toxicity and death, in terms of [vaccine] manufacturer, health care person administering the injection, employer, health care insurance, workman’s compensation, disability insurance, job protection and benefits, life insurance.”

I see Catherine’s approach as a method of getting many players to lay their cards on the table:

“Before I decide whether to take the vaccine, I need to know how lability for potential injury works. Who would be legally liable? What about insurance coverage and payouts? I need all this spelled out…”

The government, corporate employers, and insurance companies spend a great deal of time putting together policies regarding these two basic issues—legal and financial liability. They have teams of lawyers who design their policies.

Half of modern society runs on preparing for potential liability claims from the other half.

The thing is, despite their standard liability policies, corporate and government employers aren’t ready for a blizzard of well-formed and pointed queries that put them on the spot, regarding their VACCINATION RESPONSIBILITY. These queries shake them up. It’s a bit like investigators getting a very shady hedge fund owner to open up his books to scrutiny.

So…a corporate supervisor sits down with an employee who’s just been told he must get the COVID vaccine. The employee says, “I’m not saying no. I just want to know the conditions.”

“What conditions?”

“Nothing unusual. Who is responsible, in case I happen to suffer an injury.”

“An injury from what?”

“The vaccine.”

“Oh.”

“I want to know who has legal and financial responsibility in that case. This corporation, government entities, my health and life insurance, workman’s comp, disability insurance, the person administering the injection…”

“That’s a lot of people.”

“Just covering my bases. My brother-in-law is an attorney. He’s requesting some of this information from the FDA.”

“An attorney? He’s going all the way to the FDA?”

“This is just routine. When something is mandated, a responsible person wants to understand the consequences of following the mandate.”

“You’re the first employee who’s raised all these issues.”

“I’m sure the company lawyers can help out here. Everybody has liability policies these days.”

“Uh…let me get back to you on this.”

“Sure. Of course.”

This is round one. The opening gambit.

The second conversation might start like this:

“Well, the word from our attorneys is, the federal government has issued blanket immunity from liability, in case of COVID vaccine injury.”

“Yes, I know. My attorney is querying that with the FDA.”

“He is?”

“For example, what about medical personnel who don’t follow correct procedures? The vial of vaccine wasn’t stored at a low enough temperature? But with you and the company, I’m interested in knowing what responsibility you would take. I’m on a company health insurance plan. What is the payout, and under what conditions, if I’m injured? I’ll need that information in writing…I’ve been reading my insurance policy. You see here, on page 14, where there’s a mention of a doctor’s confirming report? Would this be my doctor, the company’s, the insurance carrier’s? I asked my physician about this, and he wasn’t sure…”

Bit by bit, piece by piece, the employee gathers information. If he’s going to mount a challenge to the mandated vaccination, he wants to know where he stands, in detail. And he wants to let his employer know, in every way possible, that he’s serious and competent. And he wants to get his employer to go on the record with as many assurances and confirmations as possible, relating to the employer’s financial and legal responsibilities.

When you think it through, it turns out that what the employee is asking for is quite reasonable.

I’m picturing this approach where parents are up against fascist school boards as well.

In addition to raising hell about COVID restrictions at school board meetings, several parents could be making dozens of recorded requests for information:

“What happens if my doctor certifies that my child has incurred an infection from wearing a mask all day in class? Are you prepared to take financial and legal responsibility in that situation? I want to see your policy on this in writing…”

“I want assurances that the other children are wearing masks that actually block the virus. I can provide documentation confirming that many types of masks are incompetent in this regard—including a statement from Dr. Fauci…”

At solari.com, Catherine and her team have put together highly useful, penetrating, and original documents that people can use, in a variety of situations where vaccinations are mandated.

The ceaseless propaganda about the need for vaccination produces a trance-effect in the public. Many actions are necessary, in order to break the spell.

Active intelligent people working their way into the Policy Beast of the Establishment create dissonant chords.

As a matter of course, officials and corporate employers sit smugly on their little thrones, believing they have the situation well in hand.

But when they’re put to the test, they often come up short.

The devil is in the details. When free and independent people drill down deeper and deeper, demanding those details, throne rooms shudder.

Question: “If I follow this approach, is there any guarantee I can avoid receiving the vaccine?”

Answer: There are no guarantees, except rock-bottom refusal to take the shot, no matter what. With the above approach, you may discover the mandating entity backs off, makes unexpected exceptions to the rule, inadvertently confesses to committing violations. All sorts of things can happen on a relentless fact-finding mission.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

51 comments on “Catherine Austin Fitts’ approach for dealing with vaccine mandates

  1. Ort says:

    In short, when the Megadeath Virus of Doom “vaccine”mongers extend their needle-tipped talons in your direction– give ’em Fitts!

  2. ReluctantWarrior says:

    Another thing I would like to have Catherine and Jon consider is what legal action should be or can be taken by those who have been injured by the vaccine including the families of those who have died. I am not sure that the Fed’s have the legal standing to wave a magic wand and obliterate the responsibility of big pharma. I am sure that a strong legal case could be made that would test this magical waiver that they seem to have gotten.

    • TeresaE says:

      This was waived under Reagan, along with the necessity of warrants.

      We let pharmaceuticals buy the media under Clinton.

      Then we gave away more freedom under Bush and Obama cause terrorists and stuff.

      We are decades too late on liability.

      And because the fox owns the henhouse, the politicians and talking heads will never tell us a thing.

    • Rubicon says:

      Let’s not be naive. Big Pharma has, for several decades, retained thousands of the best attorneys in the country to ensure ALL of Big Pharma is absolutely, positively immune from assuming any liability. Period.

  3. serafino bueti says:

    Thanks Jon! Excellent approach that could go a long way if enough competent people get on board…Lawyers, Doctors, Union Leaders and membership, regular folks and even (dare I say it), politicians. Combined with massive street protests, strikes and the dissemination of truth as put forward on this site and elsewhere, the whole maskerade just might collapse.

  4. Cindy W says:

    Actually, there are a number of lawsuits already being filed around the country against these mandates. See Robert Barnes and see NCLA – Maine & Washington state come to mind; MSU in Michigan is another …

    • RegretLeft says:

      Good luck to all resisting. But the track record has not been encouraging; back early in the year, numerous competent attorneys (incl at RFK jr’s site) said the law was clear on EUA vaccines: “neither public or private employers could mandate” yet they went right ahead and did so – first a trickle then a torrent – and not a single court ruling concurred with that reading of the law. And that EUA cow has left the barn – we are at approval and the oft cited 1905 Supreme Court ruling that the sky is the limit on vaccine mandates. Anyone think a Roberts Supreme is going to touch that in any way?
      Of course “rock bottom refusal” remains – all the way to the FEMA camps, if need be. Easy for me to say that; I don’t have a family to support. Those who do, have horrifyingly difficult choices to make. God be with you!

      • RegretLeft says:

        Ah! – Now I get it. CA Fitts is proposing a sort of legal flanking maneuver. The challenge to the legality of the mandates has almost totally failed (the courts rolled over). Now we proceed in a sort of litigation-free way (to start, at least) via the rather more murky area of liability. Smart woman!

        I can in addition suggest challenges – at least alertness – to the issue of the confidentiality of employee health information including vaccination status. At the start of the pandemic, some bureaucrat in DC issued a ruling that employees could make “covid related queries” of their employees (body temperature, symptoms, etc) – totally overthrowing well established case law – ADA and various federal employment relations law – that had long prohibited such queries. However, the ruling went on, the information gained by such queries DID have to be treated in a fully confidential manner – thus, in compliance with those laws (e.g. the information had to be segregated from the normal employee records file and subject to strict access controls).

        My employer was not doing that; they tacitly (and privately) confessed “to committing violations” and I received a sort of waiver to the covid related queries (which I turned into a private opt out!).

        The stakes are higher now – the vaxx vs body temperature. But perhaps keep this in mind as a further route “into the Policy Beast”.

  5. Tim says:

    What do ya do when you find yourself in the company of nutcases? And the nutcases refuse to recognize their insanity? Either they fearfully run from (evade) the possibility of erroneous judgement, or they adopt a sneering, arrogant, threatening hostility.

    The one turns a blind eye and is a passive agent of enforcement, the other is an offensive agent of enforcement. The arrogant one feels the power of the “authorities” (government, media), and the force of violence in service to those “authorities” backing them up.
    The one is cowed into submission, the other is recruited.

    If one knows this world is a farce, that it’s not GOD’S doing, that GOD offers something Infinitely Greater, and yes; SUPERIOR, it’s not too hard to say; “okay, I tried to help, I know I did help a few, but there is a limit to what I will allow myself to be subjected to, so….bye now, have fun with your illusions, I’m going Home.
    Real soon.

  6. Rico Debiase says:

    Great approach on the part of Fitts. Definitely passing it on…

  7. Mb in Mi says:

    PARENTS WITH CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOL,
    money moves people, get together quick with the family’s in your school district and
    KEEP YOUR KIDS HOME on STUDENT COUNT DAY.
    It’s usually early in the school year and decides the $$ flow. This will wake up your superintendent and school board. Make THEM beg the local health department to change their mandates, INSTEAD OF YOU!

  8. COVID Vaccines – So safe we can’t even get insurance!

    There is a principle of military law to the effect: There shall be no responsibility without commensurate authority.

    In other words – no one can be held responsible for anything if they don’t have the authority to do anything about it. But the converse also holds – There shall be no authority without commensurate responsibility.

    As to the proposed remedy, I would suggest what is called a “Notice of Abatement”. It differs slightly from what is called “conditional acceptance” (which is what I believe Ms. Fitts is quasi-suggesting) ([note:] I would not “demand” anything from ones employer — just a conditional acceptance to consider the request).

    Either way, what is important is that these are not hostile or aggressive legal maneuvers – there is no dishonour of the other party’s request to submit. A Notice of Abatement states that you want to consider doing what the other party wants you to do – but there is a named flaw in the other party’s process that needs to be remedied before you can do so. It puts the ball in the other party’s court, and prevents them from proceeding until they fix the defect.

    Among the most salient flaws is the near-saturation use of the term “the vaccine” without specifying which one is being addressed. In a court of criminal jurisdiction, that alone would constitute prima facie evidence of either criminal intent or diminished intellectual capacity.

    So a possible conditional acceptance to an employer would be: “Given the preponderance of the use of the materially non-specific term “the vaccine” in a non-trivial proportion of the available official literature, I will consider your proposal for me to accept a nominal covid vaccination upon your provision to me of proof of financial responsibility in the event of unintended consequences, in respect of this (employer) and all of the manufacturers of any nominal vaccine asserted to be included in the term “the vaccine”.

    The use of the term “the vaccine” without any antecedent to account for it is prima facie evidence of “bad faith” that in turn wholly justifies and supports the Abatement.

    • Sean says:

      Hi Timothy, I didnt know what Notice of Abatement meant so I looked it up in my Blacks 6th. I did not get your definition you used above but I get the gist and like the angle. In fact, my dictionary doesn’t offer Notice of Abatement. However it does define Abatement of Action- Abatement is an entire overthrow or distruction of the suit so that it is quashed and ended. (so not exactly a Notice)

      Then in the next paragraph, goes on to say Pleas in abatement have been abolished by Fed R Civil P 7(c); such being replaced as by a motion to dismiss under Rule 41. In certain states however, this plea still exists to attack jurisdiction, or service of process, or to allege that a prior action between the same parties concerning the same subject matter is pending.

      If this includes the definition you used great, can you break it down and give an example or two? How to apply it? Thanks!

      Though I get what Catherine Austin Fitts is doing and I plan to use it. It gets dialog going, a record and teaches us to to dig to show ultimately there is something we can do, to force the issue at hand and demand that military law you mentioned, There shall be no responsibility without commensurate authority and it converse definition. Either take responsibility for your liabilities or get out of the (my) kitchen.

    • Marie says:

      I have always said the key is that this is not a vaccine in the (fake) traditional sense. CDC admits this. It is something other than. Show me the virus, which the CDC cannot do and they admit it hasn’t been isolated therefore not in the shot. Pharma has no protection unless it’s a vax. Where are the lawyers? The big lawyers are bought. The small ones just below the radar might pull a rabbit out of the hat, saving the day. This reveal has to go back at least to 1918, debunking that fraud so that this trick may never be used again. They’ll come up with another trick. Such is life.

    • Theo says:

      Hi Timothy,

      1. Would you put the phase “Notice of Abatement” on your letter?

      1a. Would the letter include a space for the employ to sign?

      2. Also, why not just write:

      “I will consider your proposal for me to accept a nominal covid vaccination upon your provision to me of proof of financial responsibility in the event of unintended consequences, in respect of this (employer) and all of the manufacturers of any nominal vaccine asserted to be included in the term ‘the vaccine’.”

      Instead of:

      “Given the preponderance of the use of the materially non-specific term ‘the vaccine’ in a non-trivial proportion of the available official literature, I will consider your proposal for me to accept a nominal covid vaccination upon your provision to me of proof of financial responsibility in the event of unintended consequences, in respect of this (employer) and all of the manufacturers of any nominal vaccine asserted to be included in the term ‘the vaccine.”

      3. Is Ms Fitts’s document a “conditional acceptance for consideration” notice?

      4. Isn’t the “notice of abatement” a “conditional acceptance for consideration” notice?

      5. Regardless of which one, let’s say the employer refuses to sign. I’m assuming they would never sign. Then what should the next step of the employee then be?

      Thanks.

      • Hi Sean and Theo – thanks. I will think about your questions overnight and respond tomorrow. I am a forensic financial economist and historian of equity, law, and policy. I have studied roughly 400 years of broadly-defined English commercial law in the Commonwealth countries for the most part. I am weak however in the area of US law and will have to figure out how best to answer in a way that will allow the application of the principles.

        Abatement, however, is a doctrine of equity in the sense that I am using it. I don’t think that the rules abolishing it in actions before the US courts wold be relevant here. It is like saying: “You are asking me to do what I believe to be a wrongful and even criminal act, and so I cannot comply or even consider what you are proposing until you fix up the defects.” It applies in equity long before it becomes an issue in law. If there is any conflict between law and equity – then equity prevails.

        More tomorrow – thanks – Tim.

        • Sean says:

          Thanks Tim, I am a new construction plumber in the US and recently became interested in Equity law. First by learning about the Conditional Acceptances and now Non-Negotiable Acceptance and Rescission for Cause angle. And I’m looking for more understanding. I was learning the Conditional Acceptances from the Australians and then decided to find an American version because they said they got it from here. Just paid a handsome amount to learn it but to get all of the necessary info, I have to adopt a new religion so I’m already excommunicated. Dangblastit! I’m coming up short. Thanks for your time Timothy!

          • Hi – I am back! I thought more about it overnight and have a number of points and suggestions.

            First, the general adversarial attitude of the people on the “pro-side” is wholly irrational. They should be warmly and sincerely thanking those on the “against-side” for providing the rest with a control-group by which to measure the effects of whatever it is that they have had injected into their bodies.

            I’m not sure of the details, but I believe that no previous actual-vaccine had been brought to market in under something like seven years.

            To rush at least five-different new and substantively untested nominal vaccines onto the market beginning roughly 18 months after the discovery of the nominal-virus they are purported to remedy is, at a minimum, recklessly irresponsible, and tending toward criminal negligence in and of itself.

            To then mandate or otherwise coerce mass-injection of the population with any of these concoctions is, on its face, a crime against humanity.

            What happens if there are unintended and unforeseen consequences? Who is going to take care of those who are disabled by it if virtually everyone has been so compromised? Even if the need were genuine, no sane people would ever risk more than half of the population in the initial round.

            I have spent five of the last six years in South Africa and Swaziland (now called eswazini) doing research into English law and equity and its larger relationship to the activities of Cecil Rhodes. It’s not pretty but I won’t go any further into it here.

            During my nominal lockdown for seven months in Johannesburg (before I was able to get out and back to Canada (Vancouver Island) last November, I put together a plan for a global “extra-national” control group of those who are not contaminated with any nominal vaccine.

            If done properly and genuinely constructed as a commercial enterprise, I believe that it can be well defended on the grounds of otherwise interference with commerce as per, for example:

            18 U.S. Code § 1951 – Interference with commerce by threats or violence

            U.S. Code

            Notes

            (a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

            (b) As used in this section—

            (1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

            (2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

            (3) The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.

            (c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101–115, 151–166 of Title 29 or sections 151–188 of Title 45.

            (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 793; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

            ____

            Coercing anyone in the control group to violate their undertaking to remain unvaccinated for commercial reasons and also “pro bono publico” (in the public interest) will cause incurable damage to the commercial value of the study and program – constituting interference in commerce – as well as so wantonly subjecting the public to gratuitous risk as to constitute an actual or constructive act of domestic and international terrorism.

            This is getting rather long, so I will post it now and then continue with a separate comment post just in case.

            Also, the following link is to my Notice and Advisement of Abatement in respect of nominal mortgage payments – to give you a general sense of my approach to these things.

            http://werex.org/mortgage-payment-abatement-advisory/

            I’ve been having some problems with the site but it seems to be working at the moment. The server is in South Africa but has always been very reliable so the problem is likely here on my end.

            To be continued…

            Tim.

          • The next point is that you have to determine whether your human employer is with you – versus being inherently hostile.

            It is likely they are themselves being coerced into coercing you to submit and it will be necessary – or at least very helpful – to get them on your side.
            ___

            (as an aside) It just occurred to me that a good conditional acceptance would be as follows:

            I will consider your request that I submit to having one of the following substances injected into my body:

            [list the big five versions by name]

            upon provision of conclusive proof that all of them (jointly and severally) do not fall within the definition of a “chemical weapon” under any and all international treaties that directly or indirectly deal with same.

            They normally define these things as broadly as possible to give themselves more power – the trick is to turn it around on them so as to “hoist them by their own petard”.
            ___

            With respect to the control-group contract, every participant receives an equity interest in the commercial value of the study, and which can then be assigned to the participant’s employer to hold as security for the good faith participation of the participant.

            As long as it is held as security the employer legally owns it – and that puts them in conflict-of-interest. If they do anything that compromises the integrity of the study / program, then they become vicariously liable for any damages so caused.

            We can build, say, a $1 million “liquidated damages” clause into the contract for breach of the contract – and which expressly enjoins any holder of the security – and which will automatically extend to all of the assets of the party breaching the agreement.

            In other words – if you forcibly or otherwise by coercion inject me with any of these noxious substances, then you agree that I own your house and everything else that you own.

            ___

            I have to take another break now as there is a rally downtown that I need to get to.

            To be continued…

            Tim.

            P.S. Here are three of the most important things to grasp about what is going on:

            1. Humans are highly “cogno-linguistic”. We perceive reality largely by the “language” that we use to describe it. Most everyone believes and presumes that you have to be able to “think” something before you can “say” it. The more dominant reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you have to have the words and language by which to “say” something “before” you can “think” it. Whosoever controls language – controls the mind.

            2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of “mens rea” or guilty mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into “professional-schizophrenics” who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they “name” things, and by how things are “named” for them. They suffer a “cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity” that renders them incapable of perceiving reality beyond “labels”.

            3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion:

            “A ‘systematized delusion’ is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).”

            COVID etc is currently the world’s greatest “systematized delusion”.

          • Sean says:

            Thanks Tim. Got me interested in the Cecil Rhodes statement and your project.

            Wouldn’t the control group need to be forced to take a vax in order to claim the interference with commerce scenario??

            I will check out your site.

            THANKS JON

          • Hi again: I am back just for a few minutes before heading to another function.

            The good news is that the rally in downtown Victoria (BC) was and will remain a statistical nightmare for the bad guys. I have been attending the anti-mask and anti-vax rallies since I got back to Canada last November and the first four of them only brought out between 50 and 100 people. The last one about a month ago attracted about 200 because Chris Sky was there as a featured speaker on tour with a group of nurses from across Canada.

            All of them were on the weekends. But this afternoon there were an estimated 1,000 to 1,500 people who showed up on a regular weekday! That’s is a huge relative increase.

            And they are getting genuinely angry – something I have rarely seen before.

            (My favourite line in Henry V is I have never yet been angry since I have been in France! after the defeated France nobles murder his young page-boy as an act of pure vengeance.)

            Anyway I have to run for now but will continue again in the morning. Thanks. Tim.

          • Sean says:

            That is good news.

      • Hi again: […]

        I read through some of the forms that Catherine (CAF) has on her site. I do not know how effective they will be but I could not see any harm in them.

        The problem I think is that it is “too little too late”.

        After the reading I have done over the past few days I am convinced that our only chance is to” Go Big or Go Home!”

        First, however, people have been deliberately habituated to confuse “policy” with “law” as per the following brief explanation:

        When is the law the exact opposite of the law?

        Answer: When it is policy.

        To understand why requires an appreciation of what is called the “de facto doctrine” or “doctrine of necessity”. One important sense of the term De facto is “in fact, and for the time being”.

        Assume, for example, that you are the driver of a car, and that you have just come to a stop at a traffic-light-controlled intersection, and where there is a “No Left Turn” sign above the red light signal, and others elsewhere in the intersection. But before the light turns green, a police officer arrives and gets off his motorcycle and takes a position in the middle of the intersection and directs you to turn left.

        The question is: Do you obey the sign and drive straight forward when the light turns green?, or do you follow the officer’s direction and turn left?

        Legally, you have to turn left, even though the “No Left Turn” sign is otherwise legal / legitimate, because you are following the same authority “in fact, and for the time being” as represented by the police officer.

        Notwithstanding the presence of the legal “No Left Turn” sign, the driver is complying with the policy of the authority (Crown or State) as administered by its officer(s) “in fact, and for the time being”, and so there is no offence.

        In law you would be committing an offence if you fail to follow the officer’s instructions.

        More critically, the question may be put as follows: What is the law on turning left at the intersection? Is it the law that turning left is prohibited? Or is it the law that turning left is mandatory?

        Answer: There is no law – there is only policy “in fact, and for the time being”.

        The law is the law, except when it’s not.

        Or to paraphrase the exchange in the movie The Matrix:

        Do not try to determine the law. Instead, only consider the truth.

        What truth?

        There is no law. Then you will see that it is only yourself that bends (to the will of the state).

        Now, to complete the model, assume that the real reason the police officer is standing in the middle of the intersection directing you to turn left, is because his brother-in-law has just opened a new store on the cross-street and needs customers.

        That, in a nutshell, is how the whole world works. Everything that the people think is being done by law is actually policy, and it is ever-increasingly the private policy of the administrators and in virtually all areas where it makes a material difference it is most often the diametric opposite of what the law provides.

        The whole COVID phenomenon is one big exercise in private policy being foisted upon a largely ignorant public under the pretence of law.

        But what powers or justifies policy?

        Answer: Emergency situations.

        That is why the de facto doctrine is also known as the “doctrine of necessity”.

        I think that that is what has happened and we are still under some kind of deemed emergency situation and have been for at least twenty years, if not a century. 

        You can’t get a remedy under the law until the emergency is declared over and the policy-makers give back control. But the longer it goes on and the more egregious the behaviour under policy, the less likely they are to ever declare the emergency as over.

        It appears to me that the most logical and consistent reality is that the Coronavirus-panic is a deemed emergency of sufficient magnitude to allow the entrenched-money-power to deal with the imminent collapse of the financial system by policy and not by law.

        The whole system is so flagrantly criminal as to defy normal human comprehension and so the people responsible-in-fact desperately need to avoid the consequences provided by law while maintaining their stolen-wealth / ill-gotten-gains as a matter of policy.

        Is that clear?

        Tim.

        • Sean says:

          Yes Timothy, mostly. Thanks! I will get over to your site.

          Question: If there is ever a question in law, and equity is the law of laws, above common law, ect. And if I knew how to exercise it correctly, in word, deed and act, and I rescission my contracts with Caesar, accepted no more benefits from him, which I desire, would not that mean I am no longer contracted/obligated to his rule, and am free to be? Still respective of law and not engaging in further contract and customs. Ever heard of such a thing? He can go own and I can go on. He can shoot up everyone he contracts with and can even attempt to offer to me still, but I just properly accept which leads to no contract. Thus NO obligation. Equity. Right?

          • Hi Sean – Good stuff!

            The word “rescission” is analogous to or applicable to an illegal or immoral contract that is void ab initio and in toto (from the outset and in its entirety).

            So if and when you discover or become aware of the illegality you just walk away and do nothing further.

            The term “repudiate” (which I think is what you mean or need) is like rescission but plus equity where you refuse to do anything further but you do equity to the other party for anything already done under the repudiated contract.

            So if I rent a house from you, for example, and you later discover that I am dealing drugs from the house, you would rescind the contract and simply throw me out.

            But if you were to discover that I was using the house to make porno films or something else that is not technically illegal, but outside of anything you had reasonably contemplated, then you could repudiate the rental agreement and return to me whatever unused portion of the rent that I had paid you.

            It is the difference between a legal disqualification and an equitable disqualification. I hope that’s clear – it is often a tricky distinction to make even for lawyers.

            So in most cases, if and when you want to terminate a relationship with government, it is critical to repudiate and not rescind – unless you have hard evidence of wrongdoing.

            Having said that, however, while it is definitely a desirable thing to do, it is likely too late to rely upon it absolutely. We are just one event short of total-nazi-mode where they go door to door and force jab everyone and they don’t care about the legal consequences because they are not planning for there to be any.

            Humans have been mass-murdering humans for 6,000 years, and we were all lulled into a false sense of security after WWII. We all believed that we had left all that behind and entered into a new golden era.

            But it was just an extended lull before the storm while they geared up for the end game. It took me almost 20 years to clue into the reality of it even after discovering some of the major aberrations.

            The good news, if any, is that they are (on average) far less talented that they make themselves out to be, and they may have jumped the gun by up to 30 years because they underestimated the effect of the internet.

            I hope to have a plan / proposal finished over the long weekend.

            Hang in there and keep fighting! Tim.

          • Sean says:

            Thanks Tim,

            So in most cases, if and when you want to terminate a relationship with government, it is critical to repudiate and not rescind – unless you have hard evidence of wrongdoing.

            This is what Im ran into and have seen with repeated success here, so much so that in court it works every time, because you are staying in Equity at all times. Must be taught. So it is being marketed and if you agree with their terms from the Group, to be taught, which are many, then you will get all of the pieces so that you too can help others as you are assisted. Its the stuff, but I wont covenant because I spot mind control, ect. In a nut shell, there is always remedy offered in equity. But you got to know precisely how to do this. They do. I may have the big pieces but not the detailed pieces. Therefor it will not work. They masterminded it that way. So it is a rescission because in rescission you can claim, fraud, impossibility or mistake. I will leave it at this but you dont do what everyone else is doing and go with fraud, that takes you out of equity because it causes controversy and puts you back in general appearance. And a contract is undone in the manner it was done. Rescission. And it goes bye bye. All the while staying in equity. Which is their remedy they offer. I hear what you say about the mass murdering scenario and I can sense it. However, until that day comes if it does, I was hoping that this equity stuff was more known about than what Im finding. So I thank you for you’re expertise. Sure, if I had something to offer my fellow man, like teaching equity, and if it was in the form of a private membership society, like they are doing, I wouldnt want to impose my religion or plan on you, instead I believe freedom should be the cornerstone, I would clearly offer what I have to offer, to help free you further, and then you do what ever you do or dream you want to do and do that instead. Build community, not build, whatever. Anyway, for a short time I have been looking at different approaches at getting free from the systems and a lot of it that is offered seems to be, come into my organization and get free, only to end up in another collectivist situation with a soft dictator. I cant do that. And as you well know, equity is not a group thing done all at once, it is an individual thing, it has to come from you, one person at a time. So one must be educated in it in order to be able to use it properly as a way to free oneself from what oneself is doing to oneself. Contracting ones rights away, fighting for them when one has no right to because one is contracted and obligated, policy, hence is seen as out of Honor and treated as so. Interesting creation.

          • Hi Sean and Theo – back again after the long weekend.

            The good news is that I have completed the essentials for the worldwide anchor-control-group.

            The bad news is that I posted a particularly nasty and powerful writing on my website last night – and this morning the site is offline and I cannot even view it online let alone get in as administrator.

            The admin function is inaccessible. The site cannot be found or “server not responding”, and the separate independent email cannot connect with its server – and emails are not getting through.

            It may yet turn out to be something else but it does not look good.

            I am trying to get through to my service provider in SA but it is already approaching midnight there so I likely will not be able to do anything about it for a couple of days.

            I will have more on the control-group in a few hours regardless. Sorry for the delay. Thanks. Tim.

        • jintampa1 says:

          THANK YOU TIM!
          This is BRILLIANT!

          • Hi jintampa1: Thank you for your kind words!

            I get a lot of people who are frightened by the implications of what I write and they pretend not to understand.

            But as a semi-professional statistician I know that the proportionally small but significant absolute number of people who do understand, logically and in fact wholly dominate and negate the others. It’s too consistent to be random.

            Lots more on the werex.org website if and when I can get it operating again. Hopefully in the next few days.

            Thanks. Tim.

  9. Roundball Shaman says:

    “Who is responsible, in case I happen to suffer an injury.”

    YOU ARE.

    “I want to know who has legal and financial responsibility.”

    YOU DO. NOT US. EVER.

    “What about medical personnel who don’t follow correct procedures?”

    YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.

    “For their malfeasance?”

    YES.

    “How is that fair?”

    BECAUSE WE SAY IT IS.

    “I’m on a company health insurance plan. What is the payout, and under what conditions, if I’m injured?”

    WE TOOK THE LEGALESE FROM A MONTY PYTHON SKETCH: “YOUR POLICY CLEARLY STATES THAT ANY CLAIM MADE BY YOU CAN NOT BE PAID…”

    “What happens if my doctor certifies that my child has incurred an infection from wearing a mask all day in class?”

    WE PAY YOUR DOCTOR TO RECANT AND SHUT UP. OR, WE PULL THE MEDICAL LICENSE AND MAKE THEM DISAPPEAR. AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO KNOWS OF HIS/HER PRESENCE DISAPPEARS AS WELL. YOU KNOW, THAT “LANDRU” DOCTRINE FROM STAR TREK.

    “Are you prepared to take financial and legal responsibility in that situation?”

    YOU’RE KIDDING, RIGHT?

    “Is there any guarantee I can avoid receiving the vaccine?”

    YES THERE IS. YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS. BUT FIRST, NOTIFY YOUR NEXT-OF-KIN AND PAY ALL YOUR INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

    “Why are you doing these things?”

    BECAUSE WE CAN. BECAUSE WE WILL. BECAUSE… NEVER MIND. THAT ALREADY COVERS IT.

  10. Jane Rosen says:

    Given the recent issue with contamination of vaccines, would it be possible to ask that the vial used for my injection be sealed in a bag and notarized at the time of vaccination? Just in case.

  11. Need A Ladder says:

    Restaurants and businesses in Palm Springs and Cathedral City are now denying service to those who rely on natural immunity which has for over a hundred years been proven better than injections of experimental medicine. “Show your papers or get the hell away from me” is here.

    Do not visit these cities. Tell friends even those vaccinated to stand with you and boycott them. These cities have championed some of the most hell bent forced inclusion policies and now they pull this crap.

    Democrats in Sacramento backed off the statewide mandate.

    People are fuming. It’s 16 days to recall of the governor day.

    • Larry C says:

      “Democrats in Sacramento backed off the statewide mandate.

      People are fuming. It’s 16 days to recall of the governor day.”

      Californians were already fuming last year, when Gov. Newsome attempted to ban 4th of July fireworks. Here’s a little reminder.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvdcdogC6k

    • Rubicon says:

      Yes, but we read on RT that George Soros has just now poured 1 MILLION $$$s into Newsome’s campaign.

      Telling news.

      • Einstein Debased says:

        Rubicon,

        Soros has also poured millions into Mologics, a UK test company which makes the ‘new and improved’ covid tests soon to be ushered in.

        I can’t see anything wrong with this and am looking forward to mandatory testing of healthy non-vax’d non-passport’d subjects next year.

        That will be the option we’ll be given as an alternative to passports.

        We need more legal help to stop the testing of healthy people with unreliable tests designed to quarantine the resistors.

  12. dnomsed says:

    The Nurembourg approach… criminal liability.

    Request, in writing, the details of the person responsible – from the company reponsible person, all the way down the line to the administering functionaries/medical staff – should it get that far.

    The document informs them that the Nurembourg code holds them *personally* criminally liable for their actions.

    This evidence can then be used to support an international Crimes against Humanity case at the ICC. A number of actions are already in progress.

  13. ReluctantWarrior says:

    Basically, find an honest Doctor who takes his or her Hippocratic oath seriously and have him or her give you a placebo and issue you a vaccine card!

  14. vakzine macht frei says:

    Science progress last 50 years. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Comparison_satellite_navigation_orbits.svg

    The small red and blue orbits almost touching the earth are LEO. low earth orbit. The moon orbit is 9 times bigger than the largest orbit the picture. All human space missions were in LEO. Not even to Van Allen belt. not even close. All Soviet Union, China, NASA, Elon Musk missions only went up less than one third of Earth radius…

    Only Apollo mission is claimed to go 300 times further. 50 years ago. Since than, nothing even close to that.
    Trust the science.

  15. george says:

    It is not first time genetic modifications are performed on humans. Read the bible, summerian texts, look at indian temple carvings..

    The insanity cannot be stopped with logic. Last time it took a global flood to stop it. Probably a nuclear bomb detonated in a supervolcano.

    The marks of nuclear bombs are still visible in some places in middle east and Asia.

    The signs of previous civilisation can be seen on google earth.

  16. Barb says:

    I’m Canadian.

    I’m retired

    My province, Manitoba, has mandated that unless I am FULLY ‘VACCINATED’ I CANNOT do certain activities.

    So would I need to get the Province to sign a document taking responsibility in case of injury or death?

    • Hi Barb! I was born in Winnipeg and am familiar through family members with the situation there. If you go across Canada one province at a time it is like an oscillating blueprint for a totalitarian society – it goes “Fascist – Commie – Fascist – Commie” etc. until it all blends into Commu-Fascism.

      But here again it is too little too late to do anything about it unless we Go Big or Go Home!

      The masses of humanity are facing their Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette moment for their flight to Varennes.

      Most briefly, they were captured by the mob following the initial uprising in July of 1789, and held captive in Paris. But the domestic and international situation was such that, for a brief period, it was in the interests of all the major parties that they should escape and get out of France. The leadership of the revolutionaries were willing to “look the other way” to allow for it – but it had to be otherwise legitimate. They could not be seen by the mob as being involved in it.

      The bottom line was that they had to disguise themselves as peasants and walk out of France from Paris. They had to dress in rags and stop bathing and perfuming themselves so that they would look and smell like the rabble. But they just could not bring themselves to do it.

      Instead – and even though their lives clearly depended upon it – they pretended to follow the instructions by putting on what amounted to halloween costumes and tried to escape in a carriage drawn by horses!

      They were recognised and recaptured at the town of Varennes, and returned to Paris – at which point the issue was forced – and they were beheaded for treason.

      They knew intellectually what they had to do to save their lives – but they just could not do it.

      We are today collectively at the same crossroads.

      Rise up or die! That is the only option left.

      The entrenched-money-power is a “one-trick-pony”. The only real skill they have is playing one portion of the masses off against the others.

      Otherwise, I have been back to Winnipeg at least a dozen times over the forty years since I moved west, and every time I see ever increasing incremental deterioration. The entrenched-money-power always has the advantage and luxury of playing the long-game.

      The truly sad part is that we outnumber them by 10,000-to-1.

      Our greatest asset is that the current generation of the controllers are as brain-dead as they appear to be. They are not immune to the diseases of the mind that they have tried to foist upon the masses.

      Tim.

    • To answer your specific question – I do not think that anyone in government will agree to sign such a thing.

      It is outside of my research area, but some associates of mine who have studied it intensely insist that if you are covered by the government’s health insurance Act, then you (and your body) are effectively their property and if they decide it is in the public good that you get jabbed – then you get jabbed whether you like it or not.

      I think that the only concession the government has made is to announce that if the jab kills you – they will pay the funeral expenses. Welcome to Canada.

      The only way to get out is to opt out of the public health insurance plan.

      Hope it helps. Tim.

  17. Susie Daigneault says:

    Thank you for all you do. What amazes me is how many doctors are all for this vaccine. None question the lack of safety data. How disturbing, to witness medical doctors follow orders without question. Lacking common sense and humility. Doctors should consider it an honor to heal the sick and a duty to research a new treatment before you endorse it to your patients of all ages. How terribly sad to witness their obedience to the cdc and the fda when lacks common sense.

  18. recall guy says:

    Bravo CA Fitts!

    That what I was saying all along. Just start demanding financial liability from ALL involved, and see how they run for nearest escape hatch.

    Issue is liability of third parties (employers, nurses, etc.). While Pfizer relies on gov mandate and FDA approvals for immunity form lawsuits, gov cannot force a citizen to enter into an agreement with third parties.

    Agreement which forces a citizen to grant legal immunity from civil liability to third parties here. That is well established in law in Western jurisprudence.

  19. Dame Hill says:

    Pfizer and their minions may not be off the hook hiding behind governent mandate and approvals. Case is point is Tuskegee Experiment, mandated and approved by very same CDC. In many cases governors never had authority to mandate.

    Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) needs to be revisited, since that case pertained to proven vaccine whereas we are dealing with a massive experimentation scam at this point (“boosters” every half a year – gift that keeps on giving).

    Note, that in Houston hospital fired workers’ case judge never addressed that point at all. Plaintiffs’ lawyers should rely straight on Nuremberg case against German Nazi doctors.

  20. Einstein Debased says:

    Big fan of CAF for several years. Next up we will need her recommendations for when new lateral flow tests are ushered in and will be offered up as an alternative to vax proof. Testing healthy non-vaxxed people who haven’t had a fever in months or years, who have antibodies, and/or who are feeling 100% fine, in order to dictate whether they can enter a venue, facility, store, hospital, or any other location, provides the Covid Crime Syndicate with the opportunity to quarantine us for non compliance, as well as ensures that no human will ever enter any venue or building anonymously, ever again.

  21. Abaddon says:

    Covid-19 Charts Prove No Threat Exists and Never Did
    https://rumble.com/vm4sua-covid-19-charts-prove-no-threat-exists-and-never-did.html

    “Cases” and “Deaths” converted to percentages in comparison to Populations.

    Worldwide
    United States of America
    California (USA)
    Los Angeles County (CA, USA)
    Texas (USA)
    Florida (USA)
    New York (USA)
    Mexico
    Canada
    Australia
    New Zealand
    France
    Italy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *